GR Motion & SR Physics: Exploring the Impacts of Relativity

[granpa]

Hello granpa.

Can i ask how you arrived at your opinion that the aether and space have the properties you describe. This may help me to understand what you mean. It may be clear to you what you mean but it is not clear to me. I will take this as a failing on my part but a little help might from you may make things clearer.

Matheinste.

well aether is not a new idea. if you mean the idea that space is an unnecessary abstraction, well frankly i don't really recall exactly what led to it. i know i used to spend a lot of time contemplating dimensional analysis and reducing things to their simplest form. i guess it just always seemed to me that there had to be a way to reduce the number of dimensions. other than that i don't really know.

 

[Chrisc]

paw, I'm not upset about the idea of mathematical constructs.
You seem to suggest in (#20) that if I position a clock incorrectly it might be in motion relative to space-time, that would not be a problem for me as it would answer my question. If such a poorly placed clock was at rest with respect to A, A would be in motion with respect to space-time as well.
Let me restate the question as it appears I was too vague.

Start with four identical clocks that are synchronized on the surface of A. Let one stay on the surface and the other three be raised 100-km above the surface of A one on each x, y,z axis.
If the three raised clocks do not show identical time dilation with respect to the clock on the surface, what would this indicate?

I am familiar with frame dragging, but the best tests I am aware of show no measurable change in GPS clocks in the direction(orbit) of our solar system with respect to the center of our galaxy (approx. 250 km/s)
As the Earth is but a small chunk of rock compared to the solar system, and it compared to the surrounding stars and dust in our local arm of the galaxy, I do not think the motion of the Earth would register above the motion of the whole arm of our galaxy.
So my question is, would it register if A were the only mass and if it were the only mass would the registration indicate motion?

 

[paw]

Start with four identical clocks that are synchronized on the surface of A. Let one stay on the surface and the other three be raised 100-km above the surface of A one on each x, y,z axis.
If the three raised clocks do not show identical time dilation with respect to the clock on the surface, what would this indicate?

You are unnecessarily complicating the scenario. It was clear already and I answered it to the best of my ability.

If spacetime exists independantly of mass and the clock was at rest in an absolute sense then a changing tick rate would indicate A was in absolute motion. Your new scenario is the same but would further allow you to say what direction A was moving in.

However There is NO way, even in principle, to guarantee the clock (or clocks) is at rest in an absolute sense. There is no ether, there are no distant stars, there is no center to spacetime, there is no edge to spacetime. There IS NO WAY to prove your clock is at rest wrt spacetime.

I am familiar with frame dragging, but the best tests I am aware of show no measurable change in GPS clocks in the direction(orbit) of our solar system with respect to the center of our galaxy (approx. 250 km/s)
As the Earth is but a small chunk of rock compared to the solar system, and it compared to the surrounding stars and dust in our local arm of the galaxy, I do not think the motion of the Earth would register above the motion of the whole arm of our galaxy.
So my question is, would it register if A were the only mass and if it were the only mass would the registration indicate motion?

If a clock was placed near the Earth and it was clearly at rest wrt the most distant stars in our own galaxy you would be able to detect the Earth was moving relative to those stars by the change in clock rate. We have clocks precise enough to do this. Note, however, this is not absolute motion, it is relative motion. It also has nothing to do with frame dragging. It is purely to do with gravitational time dilation.

paw, I'm not upset about the idea of mathematical constructs.

Well all your posts seem to be searching for a proof of absolute motion. In that regard you did seem disappointed when I suggested you couldn't find an absolute universal frame.

 

[Dale]

In my opinion mathematics and hence geometry is a construct of the human mind acting logically and is independent of anything physical, or spatial.

I agree that math is a human construct, but IF the universe behaves logically then it can be described mathematically.

 

[Dale]

if space doesn't exist and there is no aether then how do you have geometry?

the aether could have been put together in a nonspace like way.

I don't get the connection you are trying to make between aether and geometry/space. They seem entirely unrelated to the aether IMO.

 

[matheinste]

Hello DaleSpam

Quote

----but IF the universe behaves logically then it can be described mathematically.-----

I completely agree.

Matheinste.

 

[Chrisc]

paw, let me assure you I am not looking for and never will look for absolute motion, or any other physical absolute. I am the most fundamental relativist I know. I can't explain exactly what that means as it is against the regulations of this forum. Suffice it to say the heuristic significance of the principle of relativity extends well beyond the mechanics of physics to a more unified relativistic principle of ontology.

I think I know what my problem is here. You think I am trying to define absolute motion and I think I am trying to define the motion of a mass with respect to the space-time(changing) extending from it.
After reading your posts a few times I now realize my question sounds like I am trying to construct an absolute, but that's not what I was looking at.
The isolation of A was an attempt to remove the curvature of space time due to any other mass and set an equilibrium that could be measured if it changed.
The position and motion of the clocks was set in relation to A not distance stars or absolute space. When fixed, the relation to A was intended to determine a change in the dilation of time as an indication of something other than motion of the clocks relative to A.

My reference to frame dragging was not clear either. I was talking about a less familiar "linear" frame drag(not Lense-Thirring effect). I read a paper recently (I will post the reference shortly) that showed via GPS data that all indications are, a mass (Earth) drags space-time with it.
As a localized effect that seems self evident, but as a frame within a frame that is the Milky-way, if becomes a question of where local time gives way to galactic time.

 

[paw]

paw, let me assure you I am not looking for and never will look for absolute motion, or any other physical absolute. I am the most fundamental relativist I know. I can't explain exactly what that means as it is against the regulations of this forum.

Ok Chrisc, I understand. You're formulating some personal theory and can't discuss it further due to the forum regs. No problem.

I will say though, that unless it turns out that spacetime has some property or properties that let you position a clock at rest in an absolute, or universal, sense then your scenario is doomed to failure. That's because you won't be able to position the clock in an absolute sense. All I can do is wish you lots of luck.

 

[Chrisc]

paw, think of it this way, spacetime is a measure of what? You've probably worked on that before and know, they are circular arguments. But if one is a physical process of the other, universal and absolute have no physically real meaning at all.
Thanks for the sentiment.

 

[paw]

...universal and absolute have no physically real meaning at all...

Hi Chrisc. I was trying to use the terms in a specific manner. That is, an absolute frame would be one that all inertial frames would agree is at rest. In other words it would be a 'preferred frame'. And that's not allowed in SR.

Unfortunately the written word is inherently imprecise and we can end up arguing about semantics which isn't my intention at all. It may be that your usage of 'absolute frame' is different.

Do you discuss your ideas elsewhere? I wouldn't mind reading about them and commenting if I can.

 

[Chrisc]

Hi Chrisc. I was trying to use the terms in a specific manner. That is, an absolute frame would be one that all inertial frames would agree is at rest. In other words it would be a 'preferred frame'. And that's not allowed in SR..

paw, I understood what you meant and you're right. The measure of space and time is determined by relative motion (which is inescapable given the definition of space and time) including gravitational acceleration, so there is no rational way to even conceive of absolutes.

Do you discuss your ideas elsewhere? I wouldn't mind reading about them and commenting if I can.

I have not officially published any of it yet. I am testing the idea (in pieces) to make sure I am not just waiting for the mother ship.
It is very simple, but requires a significant change in the way we think of time.
When I do submit it, I will leave a reference here as these forums have been very helpful.